6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow.
7.  In 1999 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on two charges ‑ a traffic offence in June 1999 which resulted in infliction of bodily harm, and a burglary in August 1999.
8.  On 6 October 1999 the Moscow prosecutor's office transferred the case for trial to the Moscow Savelovskiy District Court and asked to be notified of the hearing and examine the case with a prosecutor's participation.
9.  On 12 October 1999 Judge F. of the Moscow Savelovskiy District Court ordered that the applicant's case be examined on 26 October 1999 at a public hearing with the participation of a state prosecutor and defence counsel.
10.  On 25 November 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court composed of Judge F. and two people's assessors held an open hearing. The applicant, his counsel and the victims appeared before the court. The prosecutor failed to appear, for unknown reasons.
11.  According to the court records, the court asked whether the participants in the proceedings had any requests. There were none. The court then asked whether it was possible to begin the court investigation with those present. The participants in the proceedings responded in the affirmative and the court, having deliberated, decided to do so.
12.  The indictment was read out in court. The applicant was accused under Article 264 § 1 of the Criminal Code of a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and, under Article 158 § 2 of the Code, of concerted burglary by a group of people causing significant damage.
13.  The applicant was asked if he understood the charges against him and whether he pleaded guilty. He answered that he understood the charges, that he pleaded guilty to the traffic offence and not guilty to burglary. The participants in the proceedings were then asked about the order of examination of evidence. They left that question to the court's discretion and the court decided first to hear the applicant, then the victims, and then to examine written evidence and the statements by witness Mr L. It then proceeded with the examination of evidence in that order.
14.  Having deliberated, the court of its own motion decided to examine, as an additional witness, a police officer, Mr Y., who had arrested the applicant at the site of the crime. It announced a forty-minute break, after which Mr Y. appeared before the court and was examined. Mr Y. stated that he had arrived at the scene of the burglary in a police patrol car with other police officers. He had seen a man and tried to pursue him but he had run away. They had found a car which was open and some time later he had caught the applicant, who was approaching the car and who looked similar to the man he had been pursuing earlier. The applicant had denied any connection with the burglary and stated that he had been visiting friends but could not give his friends' names or address.
15.  The court then asked whether it was possible to conclude the court investigation with those present. The participants in the proceedings responded in the affirmative and the court proceeded to pleadings. In particular, it heard the applicant's counsel.
16.  On 26 November 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant under Article 264 § 1 of the Criminal Code of a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and under Article 158 § 2 of the Criminal Code of concerted burglary by a group of people causing significant damage, and sentenced him to three and a half years' imprisonment and a fine.
17.  The applicant's conviction on the charge of burglary was based on the statements of the victim Mr V.; witness Mr L., a security guard who said he had seen three people get out of a car, one of whom had stayed in the yard while the other two had approached the building with an object resembling a crowbar. Mr L. had heard the sounds of scraping metal and called the police. The conviction was further based on statements by witness Mr Y.; a report on the examination of stolen property which was found by the police at the site of the crime and identified by the victim and a report on the examination of a crowbar which was also found at the site of the crime. The court found that the applicant took the other accomplices to the site of the crime in his car, made his car available to transport the stolen property, and kept watch while the others were forcing a window grille. The District Court declared certain written evidence inadmissible as unlawfully obtained.
18.  The applicant's counsel appealed against the judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that the applicant had committed the burglary. He also pointed out that the case file did not contain information about the prosecutor's notification of the hearing and reasons for his non‑attendance. The first-instance court had held the trial in the absence of the prosecution, thus assuming its functions. In accusing the applicant and delivering the judgment at the same time, as with inquisitorial justice, it had violated the constitutional principles of impartiality of court, equality of parties and adversarial proceedings.
19.  On 27 January 2000 the Moscow City Court held an open hearing. It heard submissions by the applicant's counsel and by the prosecutor, who argued that the judgment should be upheld. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.
20.  The City Court stated in its decision that it could not agree with the applicant's allegation that he had not participated in the burglary, because the allegation was rebutted by the materials of the case. The City Court held that there had not been any substantial violations of the law on criminal procedure which would warrant the quashing of the judgment. The City Court made no comment in its decision in respect of the applicant's complaint about the prosecutor's absence from the hearing before the first‑instance court.
21.  On 19 October 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined the applicant's case by way of supervisory review, changed the qualification from burglary to aiding and abetting burglary under Article 33 § 5 and Article 158 § 2 and reduced the sentence to two years and three months' imprisonment and a fine.
22.  On an unspecified date the applicant was discharged from serving his sentence on the basis of an amnesty act and released.